Brian Rose

Thanks all for the great advice. It's exactly what I need in times like this. Really, I can survive the periods without work, the lack of money or decent health insurance. I can deal with all that. It's the self doubt that's a real killer. If I can beat that, the rest will be a cinch. Of course, now that the Recession has been declared over, that means goods times are ahead, right... ;)

Yep, that's what I figured I'd have to do. Thanks a lot for your input, Phil! I really appreciate it! BR

Hello All: Admittedly, I'm still a learner when it comes to the wide world of codecs, conversion and compression, and I have a situation I could use some guidance on. I have an animated short which I completed using Premiere CS4 (this platform has worked better with my stop motion animation work). However, I may soon have to provide a quicktime copy encoded in Apple Pro Res 4:2:2. The original project is 1080p. Initial idea was to export to something handled by Final Cut, and from there export my pro-res, but I'm concerned about the loss in quality. I thought perhaps there was another way, or a program for PC (perhaps even something in Media Encoder I've missed) that would enable me to make the file I need without having to leapfrog to another OS. Any help would be very much appreciated by this learner! Best, BR

Thanks Dom, that means a lot. I guess I'm bummed a bit because I got into another one of those discussions with my mom about money and my work and all. I really need to learn to just avoid talking finances with her, because they all end with her telling me I need to set a timeline for my work, after which I switch careers to something that offers more money and security, so I can get better insurance and start putting money away. I know she means well, but if only she realized how much I DO worry about not having enough money and all that. And it doesn't help when all your old high school friends keep posting on FB about traveling, buying cars and all that! :P BR

I'm having one of those moments of professional and personal doubt, and thought I would seek out the advice of all those who have been at it and continue to survive. On the one hand, I feel like I'm doing all I can. Saving my money, finding work where I can, applying for jobs and trying to network. And always working on some kind of film, whether as a DP, or my own personal project, just to keep me going. And yet, I worry that it's not enough, that it'll never be enough. There is so much I want to do in the field of cinematography and film making, that I fear I'll never do, because I can't find the money, or because I'm simply not good enough. I worry that my whole life will be like it is now: scrounging for a few dollars project by project, barely making it by month by month, never able to save anything up, let alone invest in better gear or pursue the film projects that are in my head. I worry that no matter how hard I work, it just won't happen for me, and I'll be a hack whose done nothing memorable. I worry that I do everything I can, and still, that opportunity never arrives. What if no one will ever want me? I'm sure this feeling will pass, with a good night's sleep. But the anxiety and the fear still gets overwhelming at times, and the one thing that helps is to hear how others endured the bad times to make it to the good. So I could really stand to hear a few stories: How did you all manage to get through those fallow periods in our youth when work spare, money short and even part time jobs scarce, to a place where you have a semblence of control, where you are actually wanted for your skills? BR

Ditto on Adrian. The DSLR is the latest toy for DPs, but hardly suited for an entire production. You need to make so many adaptations, especially audiowise, to make it practical, and all this goes against what you're after. For doc work, especially guerrilla style as you say, a file based camera is rather impractical. You need to be dumping footage and backing up, and that just means more gear, unless you are bringing a ton of CF cards. Tapes are safer and more practical. So I second the suggestion you get a Sony HDV with a nice stereo mike. It'll have everything you need, and it still is small enough and has that consumer look that you won't attract attention as you run and gun.

Interestingly, maybe this will help film in the long run. I think for a long time, 16mm held steady, but more crucially, was not ADDING new users, because the gear was too expensive. Now, those steady users are abandoning the format for digital. The gear is getting cheaper, and there are many (more than we think I think) who are keen on trying film, and now more cameras are affordable. Stock prices and processing seems to be holding steady, and high def transfers are coming down in price. Honestly, I think 16mm is in for a second wind. And with all the new HD cameras coming and going, I'm planning to upgrade my Eclair to widescreen, and looking to shoot some 16mm for my next doc. Ultimately, I doubt I'll even bother to sell my cameras. The prices are falling to much, and they have a lot of sentimental value. They're awesome to look at, so if/when the worst happens, they will be wonderful things for the mantel and bookshelf, to reflect upon, and recall some good times. BR

For me, it depends on where the money is coming from. I'm guessing you're being paid? More importantly, is the director also the producer, or is there another person filling that role? Because if it is the former, as much as it sucks, it seems the director can do whatever is in his stupid head, because he's writing the checks. If there's another bloke producing, perhaps you can go to him/her with your concerns. Where it is tricky is, if you are not being paid, that is, if this is a low budg kind of thing where people are working deferred/in kind. If that is the case, I think you absolutely have a say in the final film, because that is where your investment lies. You have as much a stake as the director, in the film's success, and so I believe the process is much more collaborative. For example, when I'm on a paying gig, I do my best to advise the director, but at the end of the day, he's paying me so he can do whatever he wants, regardless of how stupid I think it is. But when I'm doing the occasional proj for free, I'll exert a greater force over the creative process. Ultimately, I hope you got a copy of the film before the director starting working his "magic." So at least you'll have the good version for your reel, and not something all effed up! Good Luck. BR

Why not look at S16? Blows up great to 35, and Vantage has a new line of anamorphics so you could shoot 2.39 without cropping. Aaronofsky loves em (used them for "The Wrestler" and "Black Swan"). BR

Hi Bernie, I got your email as well, and will reply. Actually, the reason I started this tread was in response to your quote. I was leaning to Super 16 initially, but your rates for U16 really made me reconsider that process, and having learned about Cinelab, now I think I've made my decision! BR

Wow Rob, it's so weird you posted. I just wrote Cinelab asking about U16! Needless to say you've answered my question. Honestly, your answer is a huge thing for me. While I haven't shot much film (I'm a recent college grad, so you know how THAT goes), but when I HAVE shot film, I've used Cinelab exclusively. Initially, I was nervous about switching labs, or having to rely upon a separate lab and post house for my U16 workflow. Your answer has, I think, just helped me make my decision! Best, Brian Rose

Ultra 16mm versus Super 16 has been debated a dozen times or more on this forum, and I've gone through as many of the old threads as I could find to get informed. I'm well up on the pros and cons of each format, and based on my current situation I'm leaning toward Ultra 16 as the format for me to covert to (I own an Eclair NPR, in case that matter). The more affordable cost is enticing, and I like that I will be able to use my R16 primes, as well as the c-mount on my Eclair. And it is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that a camera converted to Ultra 16 can be further modified to Super 16 in the future, should the need arise. However there is one thing holding me back from taking the plunge, and that is the future of the format. I'm concerned about investing money in a process, only to find it has been rendered unusable because the necessary facilities are no longer extant- "one lab" equipped to properly process it had gone bellyup, or the "one post house" with an ultra 16 telecine/datacine gate also went kaput. I'm not sure how many labs and post houses are equipped to handle the process, but I know it is few, with many others remaining suspicious of the format. Are the number of ultra 16 users justifying the maintainance of the facilities? So what I'm after is a "health checkup" on the format, and how it is fairing in the industry. I mean, while Ultra is certainly no Super 16 in terms of prevalence in the industry, and probably never will be, has it made any further inroads toward acceptance? Have any more labs/post houses become equipped (or are in the process) to meet the demands of the process, or are Bonolabs and Cinelicious still the only game in town? Basically, is Ultra 16 a growing format, holding steady, declining...? Any info, or other thoughts and opinions would be most appreciated! Best, BR

Andrew I wouldn't be so hard on yourself. Having been through the festival wringer myself, I believe they are a lot like the lottery: they dangle the promise of notoriety, distribution, money, gladly take your money, and then send you a rejection letter. Actually they're worse than the lottery, because while in the lotto everyone has the same odds, in film festivals, there's layer upon layer of intrigue, politics, connections that all interplay to create this weird force that is God-like in its mysterious ways. My first documentary to do the festival thing got rejected by twenty of them...including my home town fest, and even my Alma Mater, where I had friends who helped select the films...they didn't even send me a note, just the usual form letter, sent several weeks after the fact. I got some good advice, from a fellow filmmaker who went through the gauntlet, and who is now a fairly significant up and comer...he said simply to keep making films. Don't invest all your hopes in one film, because they will probably be dashed. Keep working on more films, because that's how you'll make it, realistically. Only a few hit it big thanks to one film in a festival. Most make it through years and years of work, building a reputation and a name built on respect that's been earned, not given because they got lucky and made it to Sundance. And really, how many films can you name that played at Sundance last year? Two years? Five? Ten? Compare to guys like John Ford, or Alfred Hitchcock. They made it by being incredibly prolific, honing their craft, and they were ready to create a string of masterpieces because of it. Another option is try for TV. There could be some opportunities there, to get your film out on various public or cable channels that occasionally screen short programmes. And your film shown on TV will be seen by MANY more people than at just about any ole festival. I just finished writing a doc, which'll air on PBS sometime late this year, or early 2011. And knowing that it'll be seen by more people than any of the films at my college's pissant festival is a pretty nice consolation for their rejection! Stay strong and stay committed! And keep making your films! BR

Ditto. The only way I can envision proper, true HDR would involve several cameras arrayed around a plate beamsplitter, so you can capture the identical image twice, as well as retain the power to adjust your exposure through each lens. But with only two cameras, taking the over and underexposure, will just yield really low-rent HDR one sees on flickr by amateurs. True, quality HDR needs a wider range of exposures for better blending...at least three exposures, and better yet, five (-2,-1, 0, +1, +2) BR

Adrian I think you've got it. In a lot of ways, HDR reminds me of the early attempts at color. Kinemacolor was essentially a crude form of frame blending, where two successive frames coloured red and green were combined on screen via the "persistence of vision" effect. The process and many like it failed to catch on because of bad fringing since the images were not capture simultaneously. Technicolor resolved this problem but had to use beamsplitters to capture multiple images of the same thing at once. Eastman Kodak then did Technicolor one better by eliminating the need for beamsplitters and multi-strips of film by devising what we know today: a single strip of film with various dye layers. HDR is very similar because you're creating a depiction of reality that relies upon that reality captured from the same vantage point at the same time, through albeit slightly different exposures, then recombined. Either you must do successive exposures as photographers have done, or you have to use some form of beamsplitter with two or more cameras (as those Russian fellows did in the video link I posted) or you have to find a way to create translucent sensors that can be layered and programmed to each over or underexpose. The Epic has to be using some very advanced form of the first method, simultaneous exposure blended, which could raise some concerns about photographing action type scenes. BR

I sure would be happy for the day when a digital camera can match the quality and resolution of 5/65. Not because I relish seeing that glorious format mothballed for good, but just because at this point, the odds seem much better of me getting to shoot something in that hypothetical format, as opposed to 65mm film, which is getting ever slim. Really, I wish I could've been born much, much earlier, so I could've camera opped in the days of Camera 65 and Todd AO, or the heydey of Imax in the 80s and 90s. Alas! Still, those latest epic stills are VERY encouraging, if I neglected to say it before. Which drives me all the more nuts, since I can't afford to buy an Epic, and even renting would put a mighty big dent in my savings! :( BR

Yeah, I guess I didn't mean to knock the process entirely, but just the fact that, like 3D, people could start doing really crude HDR for everything as a shortcut for lighting and all. It has its use, but god it'd be awful if that short of HDR became the default for indie filmmakers.

Well, here's hoping Epic's HDR doesn't look like this: Bleeeeeeeeeecccccchhhh!

How much footage? Quite a bit. It's a feature length biopic of sorts, heavily centered around the first person interview of the individual involved. Think "Mr. Death" or "Fog of War." I know, shooting film is crazy, crazy, but I've already accumulated the gear I need in the past years, and when I started crunching the numbers to buy or rent camera gear, I started to realize it wouldn't that much more to go film. Because of the time frame in which the film is concerned, for reasons of style, 16mm black and white seemed a very natural and appropriate choice for me. On top of that, with EVERYONE with a high def camera going out and shooting docs, I think shooting on film (and stark black and white to boot) would really set the film apart. And with prices going way down for high def transfers, I just figure on going for it! Anyways, nothing is set in stone yet, and God knows what could happen between now and then, but at this point, I sure do want to shoot film! Hopefully I can make it happen. Thanks Karl! Best, BR

Karl, wow! Thanks for going the extra mile to help me out. You've given me a lot of options! Sadly, I don't think buying plus-x leftovers will work for me, because I won't start shooting before 2011, and I need a fair amount of it. Ultimately, as is the answer in almost every film related situation, I need to do some camera tests! BR

Hello All! Like many of you, I was dismayed when Kodak discontinued Plus-X negative. I absolutely adored its silky texture with that pleasing, though not distracting grain. I'm contemplating shooting a new doc in 16mm black and white, which in this post Plus-X world means I'm stuck using Double-X. However, I'm not as keen on the grain structure. I've shot it before, and I always found it to be rather distracting and ugly looking. So what do to? The first thought was to shoot low speed colour and simply convert to monochrome in post. However, one of the reasons for shooting black and white was budgetary, and the added cost of colour seemed a needless expense since it won't be finished in colour. Not to mention, I've always thought it was cheating a bit (i.e. "Good Night and Good Luck). But then to reduce grain in Double X, it seemed to me I'd have to over expose and then pull process, which would add cost to processing which would seemingly negate the savings of shooting black and white over color! So I'm rather in a quandary. What do you all think? Best, BR

Andrew, I think you hit it on the head with your assessment of your work on the picture, which says a lot about how you are able to learn and grow from each experience! It does have a bit too much in the "slick" factor which feels atonal to the story. It comes down to the lighting, I think. Everything is a bit too bright, and while you have a fairly shallow depth of focus, the film still feels rather flat because everything has a very even feel to it. I wanted to see more shadows, more areas without detail, to build that sense of dread. Also, I think a more varied use of color would have worked better. You did an excellent job handling the quality of the light, so it never looked "lit" like so many amateurish productions I've seen, but the lighting was all of a rather uniform quality...it was very white and neutral, which kind of felt out of place. I would have favored more localized lighting, to allow pools of light amid patches of darkness, and employed color gels to give a variety of tones. Still the camera work was excellent, and it's clear by your post that you've already decided what you would do differently if you could do it again. So I would call your film a resounding success in that respect. You've grown from the experience, and are a better DP because of it. The only failed efforts are the ones we refuse to learn from! BR

Reminds me of a joke in the UK: American beer is like making love on a lake...it's f*cking near water!

That's what happens when you have a weak border policy: lots of Germans coming over here to steal our research and development jobs, and to make our transit systems more efficient! Next thing you know, we'll all be speaking like the Kaiser and eating sauerkraut! BR

They're probably no good, so you should just send them all to me. ;) Seriously though, I second the clip test, especially for the higher speed stuff which tends to be the most "volatile," compared to the low speed which is pretty hearty stuff. But based on stuff I've seen shot on decades old stock, I'll be you'll be pleasantly surprised. BR